Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Ohio 354

McDougal v. Fleming

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1829

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1829-12-15

<p>A bill of exceptions lays no foundation for reversing tbe judgment, unless it contains matter distinctly showing that the party taking it might have been prejudiced by the judgment excepted to.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1912

1 district ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1829-12-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*By the Court :

¶1The party excepting must distinctly point out wherein he may have been prejudiced by the decision excepted to. King v. Kenny, 4 Ohio, 81, 82. In the present case, the whole evidence is not disclosed, nor any precise question raised, by the bill of exceptions. The issue, in an action of assumpsit, is so broad that we can suppose many situations, in which the record would be proper testimony. Inasmuch, then, as the record does not show that the court below erred, we affirm the judgment.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/4/ohio/354 · .json · Public domain